. /W33 



)C 103 
.M33 
^opy 1 



DOUBLE NUMBER 



THE 

RATIONALIST 

OCTOBER. 1913 Volume 2 No/ 1 2 and 1 3 

The Story of Joan of Arc 

The 
Witch— Saint 



M. M. MANGASARIAN 



LECTURER 
OF THE 

INDEPENDENT RELIGIOUS SOCIETY 



1913 

Studebakei Theatre 

CHICAGO 



Past Numbers of The Rationalist. 



No. 


1. 


No. 


2. 


No. 


3. 


No. 


4. 


No. 


S. 


No 


6. 


No. 


7. 


No. 


8. 


No. 


9. 


No. 


10. 


No. 


It. 


No. 


12. 


No. 


13a 


No. 


IS. 


No. 


16. 


No. 


17. 


No. 


18. 


No. 


19. 


No. 


20. 


No. 


21. 


No. 


22. 


No. 


23. 


No. 


24. 



St. Francis, the Second Christ. 
Marcus Aurelius. 

Ships that Sink in the Night; or, God and the Titanic. 
What has Christ Done for the World ? 
Lyman Abbott on Immortality. 
Voltaire in Sades, 

The Gospel of Sport— What Shall I Do to Be Saved? Play I 
A Poet's Philosophy of Happiness— Omar Khayyam, 
A Rationalist in Rome, {A Lecture in Three Parts.) Part 1 
A Rationalist in Rome, {A Lecture in Three Parts.) Part 2 
A Rationalist in Rom.e. (A Lecture in TJiree Parts,) Part 3 
Jew and Christian According to Shakespeare, 
Dd 14. Christian Science and Common Sens; 
A Message Prom Abroad. 
Tfie First Modern Man. 

The Monk and The Woman in The Garden of Allah, 
The HighCost of Living and the Higher Cost of Superstition 
The Debate between Three Clergymen and a Rationalist. 
Rationalism and Crime. 
Women and Crime. 
Was Jesus a Socialist? 

The Catholic Church and the Socialist Party. 
What is the Trouble with the World ? 



The above 24 lectures will be sent to any address upon receipt of $2 

Volume 2 
No. 1. Who Made the Gods? 

No. 2. Marriage and Divorce, According to Rationalism. 
No. 3. The American Girl. 
No. 4. The Catholic Church in Politics. 
No. 5. Christian and Turk. 

No. 6. The Gospel According to Bernard Shaw. 
No. 7 and 8. Morality Without God. 
No. 9. A Letter to My Flock 
No. 10. ^ Missionary's Convert. 
No. 11. The Ex- Priest in Paris. 



The Rationalist 

Is published by the Independent Religious 
Society semi-monthly. Each number is to 
consist of a lecture by M. M. Mangasarian. 
Price of subscription, per annum, $2.00, 
Orders should be sent to 

The Independent Religious Society 
922 LAKESIDE PLACE. CHICAGO 



■- k, '- 



.;^.Ml^i 



^Vi- 



VO'" 



-s^V 



Joan of Arc 



This lecture on Joan of Arc, delivered some time ago, 
provoked a great deal of criticism in Chicago. The people 
who protested against it and wanted to punish its author 
were, naturally enough, the Roman Catholics. What inter- 
ests me in Joan of Arc is not the fact that the story of her 
martyrdom and subsequent canonization could be used as a 
weapon against the Church of Rome, but because the story 
in itself is so very compelling. It is quite true that the story 
also illustrates how far from infallible the Catholic Church 
has been in its dealings with the Maid of Orleans — first, 
burning her at the stake as a Mitch, and, five hundred years 
later, beatifying her as a saint. The statement in my lecture 
which caused the greatest displeasure was to the effect that 
the same church which had burnt Joan of Arc as a witch 
in fourteen hundred thirty-one had sainted her in nineteen 
hundred and nine. The Catholics deny that they were at 
all responsible for the terrible death of the deliverer of 



France. This lecture will throw some Hght on that question. 

As related in a former lecture, it was at her shrine, in 
the Church of the Sacred Heart, in Paris, last summer, that 
I promised myself the task of presenting to the American 
people the truth about Joan of Arc. I shall speak very 
plainly in this lecture, but, I am sure, without any trace of 
bitterness in my heart toward anyone. I shall speak with 
feeling, of course, for it is impossible not to be moved to 
the depths by the events which brought a girl of nineteen to 
the stake — but my passion is free from anger or prejudice. 
I can weep for this young woman without gnashing my 
teeth on her fanatical persecutors. I am sure I can tell the 
truth without lying about the Catholic Church. 

But I do not wish to be sentimental, either. I have not 
forgiven the unrepentant destroyers of the innocent. To 
convert a heretic into a saint by trying to prove that she was 
not a heretic at all is not repentance; it is sophistry. To 
deny that Joan suffered death at the hands of, and by the 
authority of, the Vicar of Christ on earth is not a sign of 
regret for the past, but a defiance of history. When the 
Catholics shall admit that, through ignorance, and urged on 
by circumstances they could not control, they committed the 
act which they have since atoned for by offering her a 
heavenly crown — when, I say, the Catholics shall shed over 
her body tears as genuine as those which black Othello shed 

4 



i 



over the woman he had smothered — ^then we will forgive 
them. 

But the Catholic Church will have to choose between 
securing our forgiveness and retaining her infallibility. If 
she should repent of a single act ever committed by her offi- 
cially, she would lose her claim to infallibility — for how can 
the infallible err? If, on the other hand, she should hold to 
her infallibility, hov/ can she be sorry for anything she has 
ever done? If I had any influence with the Catholics I 
would advise them to sacrifice infallibility for the respect of 
humanity. It is much more divine to say, "I am sorry," 
than to say, "I am infallible." But the Catholic Church 
will not take my advice. 

The shrine of Joan in the Paris church is almost as elo- 
quent as her stake in Rouen. I have seen them both — that 
is to say, I have seen the spot on which she was consumed, 
marked by a white slab ; and I have seen the marble figure of 
Joan, as a girl, in the attitude of prayer, now in the Church 
of the Sacred Heart in Paris. As I stood at her shrine in 
this great white church it seemed to me that, even though 
Joan of Arc has, at last been made a saint, there was still a 
prejudice against her on the part of the people, as well as of 
the priests. This is only an impression, and I hope I am 
mistaken. But let me present the evidence on which I base 
my misgivings: In the first place, Joan is not given the 

5 



preference in the shrine set apart for her. St. Michael, 
whoever he might be, occupies the whole front of the altar, 
and only on the windows and the side walls do we find any 
mention of Joan and the events of her heroic career. There 
is also, at one end of the enclosure, as intimated before, a 
small marble figure of Joan on her knees. Why does St. 
Michael usurp the place of honor over the altar ? Who is he ? 
What has he done for France ? In the second place, there 
was not a single lighted candle at her shrine. St. Mary's 
altar, a little distance off, was ablaze. St. Joseph's, too, 
was honored by lighted candles. But no one was on her 
knees and no flame twinkled before the sainted Joan of Arc. 
They say that it is almost impossible to outlive the charge 
of heresy. In former times, quite frequently, even heretics 
who repented of their heresies were put to death, neverthe- 
less. To have ever been accused, even, or suspected of 
heresy, is an unpardonable crime. Joan was suspected, at 
least, of rebellion against Home, and it seemed to me, as I 
reflected upon what I observed in the church, that the 
Catholics had canonized this village maid reluctantly, and 
only under pressure, and after five hundred years of dilly- 
dallying. 

But before I left the Church of the Sacred Heart there 
was a lighted candle upon her altar. I lighted it. Ap- 
proaching one of the candle tables, of which there are half a 

6 



dozen in the building, I purchased a long, tapering candle, 
white as the lily, and I touched it with fire — I kindled it 
and set it in one of the sockets to burn before the kneeling 
Joan. I left my flaming candle in the Church of the Sacred 
Heart! I, a non-Catholic, offered my fire to Joan, not 
because she had been canonized — for I never wait for the 
consent or the approval of the Pope before paying homage 
to anybody — but because her sweet, sad story is one of the 
most moving of modern times, and her vindication one of the 
most stupendous conquests of modern thought. 

The Church of the Sacred Heart is one of the most 
beautiful in Paris. It is built on the highest point in the 
city and commands a wonderful view. As I have told you 
before, I have two friends who dwell on this summit — really, 
a superb location. It is approached by a long flight of 
stairs, or by a cog-wheel train. Before it, and all around it, 
sweeps the Paris of to-day, as did the Paris of Clovis and 
Charlemagne, nearly fifteen hundred years ago; the Paris 
of Julian, Emperor of Rome, older still ; the Catholic Paris, 
when kings and parlements bowed low to kiss the great toe 
of the Itahan Christ, or his vicar; the Paris of the Medici — 
red and bloody; the Paris of the Huguenots, of Henry of 
Navarre, of Conde and Colligny — sad, desolate, and in the 
throes of a new faith; and the Paris of the philosophers, 
whose smile softened its barbarities, lit up its darkness, and 

7 



made it a city of light — La ville Lumierel There, on that 
splendid elevation, live my two young friends. They are 
both at the age of nineteen. One of them a lad, the other 
a maid. The girl is housed; the boy is exposed. Joan of 
Arc hves in the church — the cathedral is her home. The 
Chevalier de La Barre stands on the edge of the hill, with 
sun and shower falling upon his head. The Catholic Church 
burnt them both at the stake — the boy and the girl; the one 
because he did not tip his hat to the priest at a street pro- 
cession, the other because she believed in herself! But mod- 
ern thought has vindicated both of these outcasts. Joan now 
dwells in a white church, perfumed and lighted; and the 
Chevalier crowns the brow of the hill with his youthful 
figure and appealing gesture. The chain which tied these 
children to the stake in a dark age has flowered ! Is not that 
wonderful? I believe in the forces, the ideas, the movement 
— ^the thought that can cause a chain to flower ! 

I am not going to speak this morning of the Chevalier 
de La Barre, to commemorate whose memory the Rational- 
ists of France have erected this monument, close to the 
Church of the Sacred Heart. He will be my theme on 
another occasion. In this lecture I shall confine myself to 
the story of Joan of Arc. And a strange story it is! A 
young girl of seventeen marches at the head of a dilapidated 
and demoralized army, and leads it on to victory against 

8 



the best fighters of the world, the English, who, in the fif- 
teenth century, were trying to annex France to England; 
she is captured by traitors, sold to the enemy for ten thou- 
sand pounds; and then she is handed over to the church to 
be tried for heresy. She is tried, convicted, and sentenced 
to be burned ahve. This sentence, the most revolting on 
record, is carried out in all its literalness, and in broad day- 
light, and under the shadow of the Christian cross, and at 
the very doors of a great cathedral. All this transpired in 
the city of Rouen, on the thirtieth day of May, fourteen 
hundred thirty-one. 

In order that I may enter into the spirit of the thrilling 
events of which Rouen was the stage, I repaired to that city, 
and reverently visited the scenes of the trial and the mar- 
tyrdom of this latest saint of the Catholic world. Words 
cannot convey to you the emotions which, like a storm, burst 
upon me suddenly as the conductor on my train called out, 
"Rouen!" It was then about a half hour to midnight, and, 
jumping into a carriage, I was quickly driven to my hotel. 
What thoughts, and how they crowded in upon me, as soon 
as I laid my head upon my pillow. My brain was too active 
to permit of sleep. I imagined I was living in the year four- 
teen hundred thirty-one, and that I had just reached this 
city on the eve of the martyrdom of Joan. "To-morrow," 
I whispered to myself, "Joan of Arc will be led to the 

9 



stake." Again and again I repeated to my pillow this shud- 
dering intelligence. "What," I exclaimed to myself, "a 
young woman who saved France by her courage is going 
to be committed to the flames in this very city tomorrow!" 
I could not believe it possible. I could not believe that there 
was folly enough, or hatred enough, or stupidity enough, in 
the world for so desperate a deed. But, alas, it was true. 
With my eyes closed, I fancied I saw the throngs marching 
through the streets — consisting of peasants, of merchants, of 
priests, of princes — to see a girl of nineteen burned in the 
fire, and in all that throng there was not one who had either 
a kind word or thought for her — her who had given them 
a country to live in. Abandoned, hated and spat upon, she 
was left to suffer the crudest punishment that human 
inhumanity could devise, or the most perverse imagination 
invent. A girl of nineteen burned alive! "Oh, God!" The 
words escaped my lips in spite of me. Then I turned about 
and called upon Humanity. But in the fifteenth century 
God and Humanity were both hard of hearing. Then I 
called upon Science and Reason. But these were not yet 
born. "There is no help then," I whispered to myself, and 
my heart swelled within me with indignation, and I became 
desperate, realizing my helplessness. 

With my head upon my pillow during that first night 
I sj^ent in Rouen, I tried to penetrate into the motives for 

10 



the persecution of Joan. This brave girl was feared because 
she was superior to her age. She provoked the jealousy of 
her inferiors. Her independence and originality alarmed 
both the Church and the State. Her ability to take the 
initiative, and her courage to disagree with her spiritual 
teachers was a menace to the authority of the priest with 
the keys, and the king with the sword. The English would 
not admit that a mere girl, a Domremy peasant, tending her 
father's cows, could have the genius to whip them — ^the most 
powerful warriors of Europe. The Catholic Church, on the 
other hand, would not forgive Joan for distinguishing herself 
without their help. For a woman to eclipse the Holy Church 
and humiliate a powerful State, was a crime punishable by 
death. 

In less than two years' time Joan had saved France, 
after the prayers of the Church and the armies of the nation 
had failed ignominiously. In the opinion of the world of 
that day there was only one power, the devil's, that could 
outwit the Church. It was not denied that Joan had driven 
the victorious armies of the enemy out of France, and made 
a conquered people free again; but it was argued that she 
had achieved this triumph, not by the help of God, but bj^ 
the instrumentality of the devil. In those days, anything, 
however praiseworthy, if accomplished Avithout the permis- 
sion and cooperation of the Church, was the work of the 

II 



devil. Joan had consulted her own heart, instead of the 
village confessor. That was her heresy. Joan had seen 
visions and heard voices on her own account. That is the 
independence which, if encouraged, or even recognized, would 
overthrow the Catholic Church. ISTo one is allowed to receive 
revelations at first hand. Even God is not permitted to 
speak except through his vicar on earth. In short, Joan was 
a protestantj inasmuch as she not only had direct relations 
with heaven, hut she refused to allow the Church to be the 
judge as to whether her voices were from God or from 
Satan. During all the agony of her long trial, every effort 
was made to induce her to allow the Church to be the judge 
of the nature of her visions. Joan refused the test. There 
was no doubt about her heresy. She believed herself capable 
of judging. That was her unpardonable sin. 

Still imagining myself in Kouen, in the year fourteen 
hundred thirty-one, I said to myself, "I must arise early in 
the morning and go to the old market place to catch a 
glimpse of the wonderful woman when she leaves the tower 
for the stake." As the picture of what I would see on the 
following day arose before my closed eyes, I trembled. "I 
will not let them burn her," I cried passionately. But, alas, 
what could one man do against king, pope, and the mob! 
And I tossed in my bed like one in a cage who is conscious 
of his helplessness against iron bars. 

12 



Suddenly, a thought struck me, as the lightning strikes 
a tree. "This is fourteen hundred thirty-one," I repeated 
to myself. "I must get up at once and repair to the palace 
of the Bishop of Beauvais, the priest who holds in the hollow 
of his hand the fate of the bravest maid in history. If I 
could only have a half hour with him," I said, "to pour into 
his ears my protest, my pleadings, my scorn, my prayers; 
or, if I could tell him of the time when Joan will have a 
shrine in a Catholic Church! — he might relent and hearken 
unto reason?" With these thoughts in my mind I jumped 
out of my bed, I lit the candle, I put on my clothes. Then, 
in haste, I walked out into the night, seeking my way in the 
streets of the strange city now deserted. By the help of 
the moon and the stars of that night in May, fourteen hun- 
dred thirty-one^ I traced my way to the imposing Cathedral 
of St. Ouen, standing like a towering shadow in the cold 

light of the night, and close to which lived the Bishop of 

Beauvais. 

I knocked upon the Bishop's door. "Open, open," I 

cried, as in the dead of night I kept pounding upon the door. 

"I wish to come in," I cried. "I wish to save the Church from 

an indehble stain, I wish to protect the honor of humanity. 

"Open, open," I cried, again and again, and in the stillness 

of the night the noise of my blows reached far and wide. 

Louder and louder still I cried to the Bishop to open the 

18 



door. "I wish to rescue France and England from com- 
mitting an act of infamy ; I wish to save history from an un- 
speakable shame. Let me in, Bishop ! I come to protect you 
against the execration of posterity, against eternal damna- 
tion! Open, open the door!" I shouted. I kept pounding 
upon the door, long and loud, on the eve of that foul day in 
fourteen hundred thirty-one. I grew impatient with waiting 
for the door to open, and my voice, which a moment before 
swept up and down the whole gamut of hope and despair — ■ 
pleading, shouting, sobbing — now became faint and feeble. 
I could not arouse the Bishop. He was fast asleep. 
Then I was silent mj^self. Suddenly I heard a far away 
whisper. It did not come from the Episcopal palace, nor 
from the Cathedral close by, yet I was sure I heard some 
one speaking. I listened again. I could now hear more 
clearly. "I am coming, I am coming," was repeated in 
caressing accents. "I am coming, to open the door, to 
awaken the Bishop, to usher in a more joyous day for 
humanity. I will extinguish the fires of persecution, turn 
executioners into teachers, disarm superstition, and make the 
whole world sane. In that day Joan will triumph over her 
foes and make their churches her mausoleum." It was the 
voice of Reason ! But it took five hundred years for that faint 
whisper to swell into a mighty chorus, swinging around the 
globe. That prophecy has been fulfilled, the Bishop's door 

14 



opened, and the Church yielded to the clamor of civilization, 
and changed Joan's stake into the shrine where I lit my 
candle in her honor, in the Church of the Sacred Heart. 
She is no longer a heretic, she has become a saint. Her tears 
have changed into pearls, her tomb into a cathedral, where 
she sleeps in pomp on the bosom that once stung her to death. 

But I was not in Rouen in fourteen hundred thirty-one ; 
I was there five hundred years too late. The day after I 
arrived in the city, I went to the market place, but, instead 
of a procession with candles and torches, with stakes and 
fagots, I found commerce, industry, labor, in full possession 
of the great square. Prosperous looking men and women 
met and greeted one another pleasantly ; farmers were selling 
fruit and vegetables ; the women, flowers. Even the priests 
one came across smiled as they saw the happy countenances 
of the people. What a change! Common sense has sweet- 
ened human nature and flooded the mind with the light that 
destroys superstition and makes all men brothers. The guide 
pointed out to me the white marble slab marking the spot 
on which Joan of Arc met her death. "Upon this place stood 
the stake of Joan of Ai'c. The ashes of the glorious virgin 
were thrown into the Seine." This is the inscription on the 
slab which was placed there by the municipality in eighteen 
hundred ninety-one. 

Close to this same spot the citizens of Rouen have erected 

15 



a fountain, in the form of a monument, to the same heroic 
maiden. I stood and watched the playful waters as they fell 
with a liquid plash into the marhle basin below. Presently, a 
woman came along with her pitcher. The stake at which 
Joan of Arc was burned to death has become a fountain, to 
which the people now come to slake their thirst. Walking up 
to the woman, I said, "What fountain is this?" "Ah, mon- 
sieur," she exclaimed, "behold the fountain of Joan of Arc." 
"But she was a heretic," I remarked. I can never forget her 
smile. The sun had arisen in her eyes. "We live in the 
twentieth century," she replied. And, unconsciously, we both 
heaved a sigh of relief. I rubbed my eyes to be sure we were 
not living in the middle ages, when Rationalism was still a 
babe in swaddling clothes, and Theology was lord of all. This 
is the twentieth century — for we are drinking at the fountain 
of Joan of Arc instead of carrying fagots to her stake ! One 
of the sunniest spots in my memory will be my meeting with 
this peasant woman, with her pitcher, at the fountain of Joan 
of Arc. 

But my object in this lecture is to help clear some obscure 
questions in connection with the trial, martyrdom and subse- 
quent canonization of this girl of nineteen. I wish to bring 
about a more intelligent appreciation of the story of a young 
shepherdess, beginning from the day she left her home in 
Domremy, to the fiery scaffold ; and thence to a place among 

16 



the saints in the Catholic calendar. This is the only instance 
in Cathohc history of a person once destroyed as a heretic 
who has afterwards received the highest honors within the 
gift of the Church. In fourteen hundred thirty-one an 
infallible body of ecclesiastics pronounced this young woman 
to be "a child of perdition, a sorceress, a seducer, a harlot 
and a heretic." Five hundred years after, another infallible 
body of ecclesiastics belonging to the same church pro- 
nounced the same "harlot" and "heretic" to be 'angelic" and 
"divine." One infallible pope allowed her to be burned in 
fourteen hundred thirty-one; another infallible pope de- 
nounced her murderers as detestable criminals — which shows 
how fallible is infalhbilitj^ 

A great many untruths are being circulated to help 
clear this contradiction. The clergy are proclaiming from 
the housetops that it was not the church that tried and 
condemned Joan of Ai'c to torture and death in fourteen 
hundred thirty-one ; on the contrary, it was the church, they 
say, which has just vindicated her memory and beatified her 
with superb ceremonies. History, however, gives a different 
version of the affair. Before proceeding to describe the trial 
and condemnation of Joan of Arc, let me state the attitude 
of the Rationalist toward Joan of Arc's claims to inspiration. 
We can do justice to a woman of her description without 
believing in miraculous predictions. Joan of Arc claimed 

17 



to have seen visions and to have heard voices, which assured 
her of her divine mission. She was thirteen years of age, 
according to her testimony, when she felt her first thrill. 
The visions were repeated. One day, at about noon, in the 
summer time, and while working on her father's farm, close 
to the whispering trees, she saw a radiance out of which came 
a voice which she fancied was the voice of an angel or of a 
saint. It was not at all strange that she should hear voices. 
All her education had prepared her for them. She had been 
told how others had seen angels and heard voices. The lit- 
erature of the Church was full of the miraculous in those 
days. It was the ambition of every believer to receive visits 
from the other world, and to be told secrets. Joan, the little 
Domremy girl, shared these ambitions. In her case the wish 
was father to the vision. She heard the voices and saw the 
faces which her heart coveted. How do we explain her 
"voices" and her "visions"? The question is a very simple 
one, unless we have a leaning for theology. The voices that 
Joan heard were those that came from her own heart. It 
was her own dreams she saw in the sunlight. 

The young woman had mused over the acts of brigandage 
of the invading army and their French allies; she had seen 
the smoke of the burning villages and had heard the wail 
of her peasant neighbors. The distress of her people had 
often melted her into tears and wrung many a sigh from 

18 



her lips. She imagined the whole country summoning her 
to the rescue. So earnest was she that her thoughts assumed 
form and shape, and became vocal. Thus, out of the sub- 
stance of her own soul she fashioned the visions which she 
beheld. She felt herself set apart to be the saviour of 
France. The brilliance of that thought darkened every other 
object in life — home, parents, money, marriage! 

To those who will not be satisfied with this explanation, 
I beg to say that if the voices were really supernatural, then 
they should be held responsible for the cruel death to which 
they led or drove the young woman. Why did her voices, 
if they were divine, desert her when she needed their help 
most? Why did they not save her from prison and the 
stake? And which of us would like to be guided to the 
chambers of the inquisition, and the flames of the stake by 
"heavenly voices"? Moreover, if these voices came from 
God, why did they not speak to the English king, or to the 
Roman pope, in behalf of Joan, when she called on them 
for help? Why did they not assume the responsibility for 
the acts for which she was destroyed? Voices and visions 
which induce a young girl to go to the help of a perishing 
country only to use her victories for the benefit of a depraved 
and imbecile prince like Charles VII, and desert the young 
woman herself to be "done" to death! Defend us against 
them! 

19 



Returning to the question of the responsibility of tlie 
Catholic Church for the fate of Joan, there are these points 
to be touched upon. Being a matter of history that on the 
last day of May, fourteen hundred thirty-one, this young 
woman was publicly burned in the City of Rouen, in the 
square of the cathedral, the question arises: Who put her 
to death? Another important question is: Why was she 
put to death? And when we have answered these questions 
we will be in a position to discuss the much more important 
question of: Why Joan of Arc was recently translated into 
a saint by the pope. 

Twenty-five j^ears after the burning of Joan, when the 
city of Rouen was restored to the French king, and the 
English were finally driven across the Channel, it was de- 
cided to review the evidence upon which the Maid had been 
convicted and put to death. This was done; and ^^dth the 
result that she was acquitted of all the charges of heresy, 
insubordination to the Church, adultery, witchcraft, etc. 
What do you think was the motive of this revision? The 
French king had begun to realize the disgrace to wliich he 
had been exposed by the condemnation of the Maid as a witch. 
Being exceedingly pious — piety and crime were united in 
him as in many others of that day — he was tormented by 
the thought that the young woman who had assisted him in 
his war against the English, and had been the means of 
securing for him the crown of France, and had also officiated 

20 



at his coronation in the cathedral of Rheims, was condemned 
as an agent of satan by the Church; which, if true, it would 
make him not only the target for the ridicule and derision 
of the whole Christian world, but, also, an illicit king of 
the French, who might refuse their allegiance to him because 
he was made king by a witch and not by an apostle of God. 
It is no wonder that a superstitious man like Charles VII, 
in a superstitious age, trembled, not only for his crown, 
but, also, for his Hfe. Therefore, in order to make his suc- 
cession legitimate it was necessary to prove that Joan was 
not a witch, but a true messenger of God. For if Joan 
was a witch, Charles VII was not king "by the grace of 
God," but by a trick of the devil. In self-defense the king 
of France was not only compelled to reopen the case against 
Joan, now that he was free from English dictation, but he 
also indicated in advance to the ecclesiastics the conclusion 
they would have to arrive at. The king could not have 
allowed, and he would not have allowed, the ecclesiastical 
council, convened at his request, to arrive at any other ver- 
dict than the one which would prove to France and Christen- 
dom that he was made king at Rheims, not by a witch who 
was excommunicated by the Church and flung into the fire, 
but by a real and inspired apostle of God. 

Of course, it is a matter of history that it was by the 
help of Joan that Charles VII became King of France. 

21 



As already intimated, at the coronation ceremony Joan was 
not only present, but she assisted the Archbishop when the 
latter placed the crown upon the king's head. The inaugu- 
ration was practically the work of Joan. It was the fulfill- 
ment of a prediction she had repeatedly made, that she would 
conquer the English and crown the French king in the City 
of Rheims. If she was a witch the coronation was invalid. 
The ceremony of the anointing of a Idng is one of the most 
solemn in the Catholic Church. The condemnation of Joan 
as a witch had not only stripped this ceremony of its sacred- 
ness, but it had also made it null and void, nay, more, a 
blasphemy. How could a king, anointed by the help of a 
witch, be the king of a Christian nation? To appreciate 
this argument we must remember how bigoted the people 
were in the Middle Ages. In self-defense, therefore, 
Charles VII was compelled to prove to the French, and to 
the whole world, that the woman to whom he owed his ele- 
vation to the throne was not a heretic. 

Let us recapitulate. The King of France ordered the 
Church to make out a new certificate for Joan. The Church 
obeyed the French king, even as the same Church twenty-five 
years earher had obeyed the King of England and con- 
demned Joan to death. When the English were masters of 
France, the Catholic Church pleased them by delivering up 
the conqueror of England to be burned alive; when the 

82 



English were driven out of the country and the French were 
again in control this sentence was reversed and Joan was 
proven to have been a dutiful child of the Church. Thus it 
will be seen that the Church swung with the EngHsh when 
the Enghsh ruled the land, and she swung with the French 
when the French had driven the English out of the country. 
The Church was with England at one time, and she was 
with France at another-but never with Joan. I am milder 
in my criticism than the facts warrant. I am making stren- 
uous efforts to speak with imoderation of an "infallible 

institution." 

But why was it to the interest of the Enghsh to have 
Joan declared a witch? Their motives were as personal as 
those of the French king. The Enghsh felt humihated to 
think that a mere woman had whipped them, and therefore 
they were determined to prove that she was more than a 
woman-an agent of the devil. There was no secret about 
this. Their motive was very plain. It was to their interest 
to show that Joan was the personification of satan, and that 
consequently the Enghsh should not be blamed for running 
away from her presence, because who could withstand the 
devil? The English army did not go down before a girl, but 
before a sorceress. Ev^n as the King of France did not wish 
it said that he owed his victory over the Enghsh to a witch, 
or that he was made king by an apostate, the English did not 



wish it said that they were conquered by a saint, for that 
would make God the enemy of the Enghsh. One king wanted 
Joan damned, and the Church accommodated him by damn- 
ing her; another wanted Joan beatified, and the Church 
beatified her. 

It is admitted that the Enghsh could not have burned 
Joan as a witch without the consent of the Church. They 
could have burned her as a prisoner, but that would not 
have answered their purpose — she must be declared a witch 
in order to vindicate the amour propre of the English people. 
It is the exclusive prerogative of the Church to decide ques- 
tions of orthodoxy or heresy. No king has the right to 
admit or exclude any one from the communion of the Church. 
Whether or not Joan was a witch was a theological question 
and could only be decided by the ecclesiastical court. 
Neither could the King of France declare Joan of Arc inno- 
cent of heresy without the consent of the Church. It follows 
then that the principal actor in the trial, the condemnation 
and the death of the young woman under the English, and 
her subsequent vindication and beatification, was the Church 
of Kome, since without its consent the English could not 
have made a heretic of her, nor the French a saviour and a 
saint. A secular government may declare who shall be its 
military heroes, or who shall be court-martialed and dis- 
graced, but only the Church enjoys the right to damn or to 

24 



canonize. This point is so clinching that even the most 
zealous papist must admit that at one time, when all Europe 
was Catholic — England as much so as France — and the pope 
was as supreme in one country as in the other, a girl of 
nineteen, who had rendered heroic services to her oppressed 
country, could not have been declared a heretic and cast into 
the fire at the door of a cathedral, in the presence of bishops, 
priests, a cardinal and a representative of the holy Inquisi- 
tion, without the knowledge and consent of the Holy Roman 
Catholic Church. 

An attempt has been made to throw the entire blame 
of the proceedings against Joan of Ai'c upon the English. 
There is no doubt about the anxiety of the English to 
punish the Maid who had robbed them of the spoils of their 
victory over the French and brought dishonor upon their 
arms. But a mere military punishment, as already intimated, 
would not have been sufficient to satisfy the English — she 
had to be excommunicated from Christendom as one pos- 
sessed of the devil. That was the only way to save the 
English of the disgrace of having been beaten by a woman, 
and the records show that the Church, instead of reluctantly 
carrying out the wishes of the English, was more than 
pleased to bring Joan to the stake. Letters were written 
from the office of the Inquisition to the EngHsh king, com- 
plaining against his lukewarmness in the matter of prose- 

85 



cuting the young woman. The Catholic University of Paris, 
also, sent a special communication to King Henry of Eng- 
land to remind him of his duty to help the Church to put 
down heresy. The English were urged to hand Joan over 
to the bishop and the Inquisition, that the ecclesiastics might 
proceed with her trial without delay. And when finally Joan 
faced her judges, forty in number, every one of them was 
an ecclesiastic, and out of the forty, thirty-eight were 
Frenclimen. 

Moreover, the Archbishop of Rheims, who was also Chan- 
cellor of France, wrote a letter which is still in existence, 
in which he congratulated the French upon the capture of 
Joan of Arc, whom he denounces as a heretic — "a proud 
and rebellious child who refuses to submit to the Church." 
Being the superior of the Bishop of Beauvais, who was in 
charge of the trial, the Archbishop could have stopped the 
prosecution if he had the least sympathy or pity for the 
Maid. But to try to save a heretic would be the worst kind 
of heresy. That explains the utter desertion of Joan by all 
France — people, priest and king. 

In this connection a comparison should be made between 
the zeal of the clergy to bring Joan to trial for heresy and 
the slowness and indifference with which the Church pro- 
ceeded to obey the summons of the King of France twenty- 
five years after to reinstate her into the fellowsliip of Cath- 

26 



olic Christendom. The records show that it required con- 
siderable urging and manoeuvring on the part of the French 
government to bring about a revision of the ecclesiastical 
sentence against the Maid. As long as Nicholas V was 
pope nothing was accomplished. The case was reopened 
under Pope Cahxtus. Not until it was realized that further 
delay in the matter would greatly irritate, not only the 
French king, but also the populace, now freed from English 
dominion and seeking to live down the evil reputation of 
having harbored an apostate in their midst, did Rome stir 
itself in the matter. It will be seen that it was not the pope 
nor the Church that took the initiative in behalf of Joan of 
Arc. The Church only yielded to the pressure from the 
State, that had now become powerful. Had the Enghsh 
remained in control of France the Maid of Orleans would 
never have been remembered by the Catholic Church, much 
less restored to honor and immortality. 

"We do not deny," answer the defenders of the Church, 
"that some bishops and even cardinals persecuted Joan of 
Arc to death. But is it just to hold the whole Church 
responsible for the crime of an insignificant minority?" This 
is the main defense of the Catholics against the arguments 
of the Rationahsts and the facts of history. Be it noted that 
I am not trying to abuse the Cathohcs; I am only sorry 
that they should be unwilling, even at this date, to say, "We 

27 



are sorry." To commit mistakes is human. But why should 
the Church move heaven and earth to prove that it has 
never committed a mistake? The attempt is also made to 
prove that the ecclesiastics who are responsible for the death 
of Joan were wicked men and have been repudiated by the 
Church. To this is added the further defense that it was the 
gold of the English which corrupted these priests. But such 
a defense, I regret to say, does not reflect credit upon the 
intelligence or the honor of the Church of Home. In this 
day of general information it is impossible for anyone to 
wrap up the facts of history in a napkin, as it were, and put 
them away where no one may have access to them. The 
judges of Joan were all ordained ministers of the Church. 
The presiding priest was a bishop — the bishop of Beauvais. 
He was assisted by a cardinal, a vice-president of the Inquisi- 
tion, and a number of other ecclesiastics who were connected 
with the University of Paris. Is it reasonable to suppose 
that the Inquisition and the Catholic University of Paris, and 
all the clergy of England and France represented only a dis- 
credited section of the Church? 

It is the pride of the Catholics that their church has 
never been divided or schismatic, and that it has been one 
and indivisible "always and everywhere." How is this claim 
to be reconciled with the excuse that a considerable portion 
of the Catholic Church in the fifteenth century openly 

28 



ignored the authority of the pope and did as they pleased 
without incurring the displeasure of the Hierarchy for their 
insubordination? Furthermore, if only a part of the church 
persecuted the young woman, what did the rest of the church 
do to save her ? We would like the names of the priests who 
interceded in her behalf. It does not give me a bit of pleas- 
ure to prove the Catholic Church responsible for this as for 
many other burnings at the stake, but it gives me pleasure 
to be able to show that any institution claiming infallibility, 
to defend that claim must persecute. And why do I take 
pleasure in proving this to be inevitable? It might open the 
eyes of the religious world to the danger of supernaturalism. 
If the Christians no longer burn people they do not like, it is 
not because their Bibles have been altered, but because they 
no longer believe in them as they used to. It is good news 
to report that supernaturalism is waning, for it means the 
progress of science and sanity. 

There is still another point to be touched upon : When 
all Europe heard of the fate that had befallen a girl of 
nineteen through the machinations, let us say, of a few 
naughty Catholic priests — what did Rome do to these same 
priests who had so disgraced their "holy" profession, as well 
as brought lasting shame upon civilization? Is not this a 
pertinent question? Joan's trial lasted for four months. 
Not only France and England, but all Christendom was 

29 



interested in the outcome. During all this time not only 
was there not a word of protest from Rome, but what is 
more significant, shortly after the trial and condemnation 
of Joan, the pope rewarded her accusers and persucutors 
w^th ecclesiastical promotion. Again, I must hasten to 
explain that I am not interested in embarrassing the Cath- 
olics; my point is to strike at dogma — which turns hearts 
into stone, and makes of the intellect a juggler's instrument. 
Joan was sacrificed, nay, — the honor of France, of Europe, 
of civilization, of humanity — was flung into the fire with 
Joan, to save — what? Dogma! 

Not only did the church fail to punish a single one of 
the forty ecclesiastics who tried Joan, not to mention hun- 
dreds of others who cooperated with them to bring about 
her destruction, but, as intended, gifts were conferred upon 
the principal actors in this awful drama. Roussel, one of the 
ecclesiastics who figured prominently in the proceedings, was 
given the archepiscopacy of the city of Rouen — the very city 
in which a girl not yet twenty, and who had served France 
on the battlefield, and brought victory to her flag, was beaten 
and burnt to death. Pasquier, an ordinary priest when he 
was serving as one of the judges, was made a bishop after 
the execution of Joan. Two others, Gilles and Le Fevre, 
were also advanced to upper ranks in the church. Thomas 
Courcelles, one of the most merciless judges of Joan — ^who 

30 



voted in favor of subjecting the prisoner to physical torture 
to compel her to admit she was a witch — this priest with the 
unenviable reputation was also promoted to a lucrative post 
in the famous church of Notre Dame, in Paris. Finally, the 
man who engineered the trial, who presided over the sessions, 
and to whom Joan said, "You are the cause of my misfor- 
tunes" — the Bishop of Beauvais, the man whom all Catholics 
justly execrate today — even he was rewarded by the "Holy 
Father" ; he was given the episcopal seat of Lisieux. Does 
it look as though the crime against Joan were the work of 
a discredited minority in the Catholic Church? I repeat, it 
was dogma, it was revelation, it was infallibility, it was 
supernaturalism, and not this or that priest — that should be 
held guilty. 

To meet these arguments the Catholic apologists call 
attention to the fact that the church "has a horror of blood," 
and that it has never put anyone to death for any cause 
whatever. But this is true only in a Pickwickian sense. It 
is like the head saying to the hands, "I have never com- 
mitted the least violence against anyone." The hands, it 
is evident, commit the acts, but whose hands are they? The 
hands only obey the head, and for the head to blame the 
hands for carrying out its orders, realizing its thoughts and 
wishes, would not even be amusing, much less convincing. 
It is the judge, or the court, that takes the life of the culprit, 

31 



for instance, and not the executioner. The Catholic Church 
demands the death of the heretic. Is this denied? Read 
Thomas Aquinas, the most honored saint and theologian of 
Catholicism; read the decrees of the general councils of the 
church and the encychcals of St. Peter's successors, and a 
thousand, thousand proofs will be found in them to sub- 
stantiate the statement. It is the Bible that commands the 
death of the heretic. No church founded on the Bible can 
afford to be tolerant. The theory of Christianity as well 
as of Mohammedanism is that the sword which the king car- 
ries has been blessed and put in his hands that he may put 
down the heretics. The civil authorities then, in bringing 
Joan of Arc to the fire were carrying out the instructions 
of the forty ecclesiastical judges who condemned her to 
death. Had these judges found her innocent, the state could 
not have destroyed her life; it was the will of the priestly 
court that she should die, and the secular authorities fulfilled 
its wish. 

But was Joan a heretic? Strenuous efforts are made 
to show that she was not. This point is a vital one. The 
church, in self-defense, is bound to produce argrmients to 
prove that Joan of Arc was an orthodox, obedient, and sub- 
missive child of the church. If she was not orthodox, then 
the church has sainted a heretic in the person of Joan of 
Arc. One of the questions they asked her at the trial was 

32 



whether she would be willing to submit the question of her 
"visions" to the church; that is to say, would she consent to 
the findings of an ecclesiastical court concerning herself and 
her mission? To this the answer was that she held herself 
responsible only to God. This was considered a rebellious 
answer, and it was — from the church's point of view. Ac- 
cording to Catholic theology the church is divided into two 
branches, — the church militant, which is composed of the 
pope, the priests and their flock ; and the church triumphant, 
which is presided over by God and the saints in glory. Joan 
said she was prepared to submit to the church triumphant — 
the church on high, that is to say, to God, but to nobody else. 
This also was a heresy. Her clerical judges insisted that to 
be a good Cathohc she must bow to the will of the church on 
earth — the pope and his representatives. Her heresy then 
was both real and serious. She appealed from the pope to 
God. She placed her own conscience above the authority 
of the church. She believed in private judgment, the exer- 
cise of which is forbidden by the church. In refusing to let 
the pope act as the middleman between God and herself she 
was threatening the very existence of the papacy. There 
is then no doubt that both by her independent conduct and 
by her original answers Joan attacked the very fundamentals 
of Catholicism. It follows, then, that the pope a few years 
ago made a saint out of a heretic. 

33 



Although Joan was an uncultivated girl, able neither 
to read nor write, she was gifted with good common sense. 
She saw at a glance that if she were to submit to the church 
she would thereby be casting doubts upon the genuineness of 
her "visions." She preferred to go to the stake rather than 
do that. She was really between two fires : the priests threat- 
ened her body; God in her conscience threatened her soul. 
She decided to obey the voice within. The decision cost her 
her life. 

Some of the questions put to her and the answers which 
Joan made are really remarkable. They show the craft of 
her judges, on the one hand, and the courage and common 
sense of the victim, on the other. 

"Will you not submit to our holy father, the Pope?" 
they asked her. "Bring me before the Pope, and I will 
answer," she replied. In other words, they were trying to 
have her admit that she had no right to think for herself or 
to exercise any independence at all. But she was too serious 
and earnest a person to subscribe to any such doctrine. She 
had never understood that to be a Catholic meant to be a 
bondswoman. "Take care," she said, -turning her fiery glance 
upon her inquisitors, "take care that you do not put your- 
selves in the place of God." By such an answer, the young 
woman, still in her 'teens, had shot the Catholic Church in 
the heart. 

84 



The nature of the charges against Joan as formulated 
by her judges also goes to prove that she was considered a 
heretic and condemned to death for that offense. The 
eleventh charge against her reads: "She has adored her 
saints without taking clerical advice." Charge twelfth 
reads: "She refuses to submit her conduct and revelation 
to the church." When asked if she would obey the church, 
her reply was, "God first being served." Luther said no 
more than that — and the Catholic church was split in two. 
Everything goes to show that the Domremy peasant girl 
was a private thinker, that is to say, a heretic. Listen to 
this: "I will believe that our Holy Father, the pope of 
Rome and the bishops and other churchmen are for the 
guarding of the Christian faith and the punishment of 
heretics, but as for me and my facts, I will only submit to 
the church of heaven/' To be sure that is insubordination; 
it is placing herself not only on an equality with the pope, 
but even above him. Of course, Joan was not a Rationalist 
— far from it — but she was an independent Catholic — that 
is to say — not subject to the church — and that is heresy. Is 
it any wonder that her sentence read: "Therefore we pro- 
nounce you a rotten limb, and as such to be lopped off from 
the church." And the reason this sentence gave satisfaction 
to the Catholics all over the world was because such initiative 
and self-respect as Joan had manifested, if tolerated, would 

85 



bring about the collapse of the infallible authority of the 
church. The University of Paris wrote to the pope, to the 
king of England and the bishops, lauding the priests who 
had purged the church of this dangerous girl with her "I 
think so," or "I believe so," — with the emphasis on the "I." 
In this same letter the Bishop of Beauvais, the evil genius 
of Joan, to whom she said, when she saw the stake awaiting 
her, "Bishop, I die through you!" is commended for "his 
great gravity and holy way of proceeding, which ought to 
be most satisfactory to all." 

It took five hundred years for the Catholic Church to 
discover that the young woman burnt as a heretic was really 
a saint. But the church did not make this discovery Lmtil 
modern thought, benign and brave, had taken the outcast girl 
under its protection. The French nation had already made 
a national heroine of her, when the Vatican decided to enroll 
her name among the hallowed ones in its calendar. The 
beatification of Joan was brought about ostensibly by the 
report that certain sufferers from cancer, and other incurable 
maladies, had been completely cured by praying to Joan of 
Arc for help. The Maid had become a miracle worker, and 
hence worthy to receive a medal, as it were, from the pope. 
Joan is now a new income as well as a saint. 

Joan owes her Vindication to the Rationalists o¥ 
France. The man in recent years whosebooks, position 

36 



and influence did more than anything else to bring about 
a new attitude toward Joan of Arc, was Marcelin Berthelot, 
who now sleeps in the Pantheon as one of the glories of 
his country. A few years ago, I received an invatation 
to visit him at Bellevue near Paris. To give you an 
idea of the great man who did so much to rejuvenate 
Europe and throw its whole weight on the side of justice 
to the Martyr — woman of France. I shall reproduce in 
this connection what I said about him after my interview 
with him: 

"Who are the Rationalists?" is one of the questions fre- 
quently asked. Well, they are the intellectual leaders of the 
world, as what I learned about Berthelot clearly shows. He 
was the man upon whom two European sovereigns had con- 
ferred the highest decorations in their power for services 
rendered to human progress, — ^whom his own countrymen 
had honored by making him a senator for life ; who twice had 
been appointed minister of foreign affairs; who had been 
elected an honorary member of all the scientific associations 
of the world; upon whom the Royal Scientific Society of 
London has bestowed its most coveted honors ; who is the 
perpetual secretary of the Academy of Science of Paris; a 
member of the Academy Francaise, and, therefore, one of the 
immortals; and whose volumes, inventions, discoveries and 
contributions have placed modern civilization under inex- 

37 



pressible obligations to him. With all these dignities and 
titles, richly deserved, M. Berthelot is as gracious in his man- 
ners, as unassuming, as childlike and modest, as one could 
desire. He displays all the charms of the real man of worth 
— ^the man of genius. 

Though in his seventy-sixth year, the sage and diplomat 
still possessed the vigor of a man of fifty, pursuing his studies 
and interesting himself in the politics of his time, with the 
ardor and fervor of youth. The aecmnulation of his years 
and his indefatigable labors had by no means impaired the 
faculties of his mind, being still regarded by his countrymen 
as one of the most fertile brains and sanest intellects of mod- 
ern Europe. 

Two years previously all France, one might say, had. 
met in Paris to celebrate at the Sorbonne the completion of 
Berthelot's fifty years of intellectual labor. It was on this 
occasion that the foreign potentates sent their delegates and 
decorations to him. Every civilized country was represented 
at the festivities by its foremost men of letters and diplomats, 
while all the senators of France, the president of the rej)ublic, 
the members of his cabinet, and all the heads of the colleges 
were assembled to applaud the master whose half a century 
of study and service had so greatly augmented the horizon 
of man and increased the light of the world. 

When this distinguished scientist was admitted into the 

38 



French Academy, Jules Lemaitre, in his address of welcome, 
declared that Berthelot was the real creator of the modern 
industrial era, which had multiplied the resources of man a 
hundredfold. He called Berthelot the discoverer of modern 
chemistry, which has in so short a time transformed the face 
of the earth, and which holds the secret of the solution of the 
social and economic problems of the day. " 'Chemistry" de- 
clares Berthelot, " 'is a new gospel, which brings tidings of 
great power to mankind."* It will put an end to the cruel 
struggle of classes, and make of warlike politics, now one of 
the scourges of nations, a lost art. It will do this by placing 
within the reach of all an inexhaustible wealth of food and 
raiment, thereby curing man forever of the disease of discon- 
tent." 

"There are only two things worth hving for," said M. 
Berthelot, in an address at the Palais de Trocadero before 
six thousand Frenchmen — "the love of truth and the love of 
one's fellows." 

That love of truth opened for .Toan the doors of the 
Catholic Church, shut against her five hundred years ago 
and it opened to Berthelot the doors of the Pantheon — 
the Temple of the Immortals! 

A final word. I have as much compassion and sym- 
pathy for the Cathohcs as I have for the martyred girl — 
indeed more, since they need more. Joan has been vin- 
es 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



030 260 969 A 



dicated by the broader and more benign thought of this age. 
The same serene and sweet power mil transform the CathoHc 
Church and make it one of the most progressive forces of 
our America. I have delivered this lecture to hasten that 
lovely day! 




^I'S'SSf- 



40 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



030 260 969 A • 




